Trial Outcomes & Findings for Efficacy of Cevimeline Versus Pilocarpine in the Secretion of Saliva (NCT NCT01690052)
NCT ID: NCT01690052
Last Updated: 2018-06-04
Results Overview
The primary outcome measure was the change of stimulated and non-stimulated saliva in ml from the baseline record. At each appointment (weekly), participants will provide 2 saliva samples to measure their current salivary output. The first measurement will be obtained by having the patient spit as much as he or she could into a cup for five minutes. The amount of saliva in ml will be recorded. The second measurement will be obtained in a similar manner with the addition of having the patient chew on a block of unflavored wax. Patients will complete weekly questionnaires to help determine which side-effects they experience as they take the medications.
COMPLETED
NA
15 participants
4 weeks
2018-06-04
Participant Flow
Patients were recruited from the Salivary Gland Dysfunction Clinic at the U. of K. A cross-over double-blind randomized trial was designed. Two arms were assembled. First arm the SEQUENCE was cevimeline(C) then pilocarpine(P), and for the second the SEQUENCE was P then C. Each participant received the drug for 4 weeks with 1 week washout period.
The total number of patients screened for the study was 28. Of 28 patients, 15 met the inclusion criteria
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Cevimeline First, Then Pilocarpine
Cevimeline First then Pilocarpine: Cevimeline (30mg three times a day) for 4 weeks (First intervention period) and then pilocarpine (5 mg three times a day) for 4 weeks (second intervention period). In between first and second intervention period, participants had a washout period for one week.
|
Pilocarpine First, Then Cevimeline
Pilocarpine First then Cevimeline: Pilocarpine (5 mg three times a day) for 4 weeks (first intervention period) and then Cevimeline (30mg three times a day) for 4 weeks (second intervention period). In between first and second intervention period, participants had a washout period for one week.
|
|---|---|---|
|
FIRST INTERVENTION: 4 WEEKS
STARTED
|
7
|
8
|
|
FIRST INTERVENTION: 4 WEEKS
COMPLETED
|
6
|
6
|
|
FIRST INTERVENTION: 4 WEEKS
NOT COMPLETED
|
1
|
2
|
|
Washout Period of 1 Week
STARTED
|
6
|
6
|
|
Washout Period of 1 Week
COMPLETED
|
6
|
6
|
|
Washout Period of 1 Week
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
0
|
|
SECOND INTERVENTION: 4 WEEKS
STARTED
|
6
|
6
|
|
SECOND INTERVENTION: 4 WEEKS
COMPLETED
|
6
|
6
|
|
SECOND INTERVENTION: 4 WEEKS
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
0
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
Cevimeline First, Then Pilocarpine
Cevimeline First then Pilocarpine: Cevimeline (30mg three times a day) for 4 weeks (First intervention period) and then pilocarpine (5 mg three times a day) for 4 weeks (second intervention period). In between first and second intervention period, participants had a washout period for one week.
|
Pilocarpine First, Then Cevimeline
Pilocarpine First then Cevimeline: Pilocarpine (5 mg three times a day) for 4 weeks (first intervention period) and then Cevimeline (30mg three times a day) for 4 weeks (second intervention period). In between first and second intervention period, participants had a washout period for one week.
|
|---|---|---|
|
FIRST INTERVENTION: 4 WEEKS
Lost to Follow-up
|
1
|
2
|
Baseline Characteristics
Efficacy of Cevimeline Versus Pilocarpine in the Secretion of Saliva
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
All Participants
n=15 Participants
Two interventions were assembled:
For the first intervention, the SEQUENCE was cevimeline (30mg three times a day) for 4 weeks and then Pilocarpine (5 mg three times a day) for 4 weeks, after the first sequence, the participants had a washout period for one week.
For the second intervention, the SEQUENCE was Pilocarpine (5mg three times a day) or 4 weeks and then Cevimeline (30 mg three times a day) for 4 weeks, after the first sequence, the participants had a washout period for one week.
|
|---|---|
|
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
|
15 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
3 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
12 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
|
Region of Enrollment
United States
|
15 participants
n=5 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: 4 weeksThe primary outcome measure was the change of stimulated and non-stimulated saliva in ml from the baseline record. At each appointment (weekly), participants will provide 2 saliva samples to measure their current salivary output. The first measurement will be obtained by having the patient spit as much as he or she could into a cup for five minutes. The amount of saliva in ml will be recorded. The second measurement will be obtained in a similar manner with the addition of having the patient chew on a block of unflavored wax. Patients will complete weekly questionnaires to help determine which side-effects they experience as they take the medications.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Cevimeline
n=12 Participants
Cevimeline 30mg administered three times a day in first intervention period or second intervention period for 4 weeks.
|
Pilocarpine
n=12 Participants
Pilocarpine 5 mg administered three times a day in either first intervention period or second intervention period
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Saliva Production in ml.
Unstimulated Saliva
|
1.41 ml
Standard Deviation 0.5
|
3.93 ml
Standard Deviation 0.5
|
|
Change From Baseline in Saliva Production in ml.
Stimulated Saliva
|
5.31 ml
Standard Deviation 0.5
|
10.34 ml
Standard Deviation 0.5
|
OTHER_PRE_SPECIFIED outcome
Timeframe: four weeksAdverse events related to the combination and order of study medication will be measured
Outcome measures
Outcome data not reported
Adverse Events
Cevimeline Then Pilocarpine (Intervention 1)
Pilocarpine Then Cevimeline (Intervention 2)
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Additional Information
Juan F. Yepes DDS, MD, MPH, MS, DrPH, Associate Professor
Indiana University School of Dentistry
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place